1 edit
Originally posted by LordOfTheChessboardI never supported mateulose being banned; I even tried to give the ungrateful twerp chess and suicide lessons. You must be confusing me with someone else; I never supported anyone being banned except cheats (and I was even willing to give them a second chance).
I find it interesting to see how a lot of the people who are now defending marauder when someone wants to get him banned were supporting him when he was trying to do exactly the same to matulose...
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderYou thought he should just go out and kill himself after he suggested it, but you never did call for his banning from RHP.
I never supported mateulose being banned; I even tried to give the ungrateful twerp chess and suicide lessons. You must be confusing me with someone else; I never supported anyone being banned except cheats (and I was even willing to give them a second chance).
RTh
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressI support your position as described above.
Thanks windmill for summarizing my point. I don’t think that it’s good in the short term or the long term.
I stick to what I said originally, verbally attacking somebody does not prove anything except perhaps that the attacker feels it’s necessary to put the other beneath him.
Insulting somebody may hurt their feelings, but it usually doesn ...[text shortened]... ho can agree with this.
And yes, it does set a bad example for those who are impressionable.
Originally posted by The Chess ExpressWe have two choices.
I sent a copy of my original list to the moderators. They have done nothing. I'm not sure what the point is except that there is obvious favoritism going on.
1) Either you're right, and the moderators are incompetent or being bribed or otherwise
convinced to ignore their duties, going all the way up to Russ (i.e., conspiricy against you
and Ivanhoe);
or
2) You're wrong and you're being absurd in your requests and expectations.
Given that the community now censors posts and determines what is and is not
acceptable on this site, I have to imagine that you and Ivanhoe constitute a minority
with respect to the aforementioned expectations for behavior on this site.
If you don't like it, don't read the forums. But complaining that someone should
be banned (someone with the most recommendations on this forum, I might add)
when the community utterly disagrees with you is foolishness. And, if you
feel that the community is wrong, then boycott the site.
Furthermore, to engage in insults and nastyness in the very thread that you are
using to complain about #1 is a demonstration that you want it both ways and you've
been called out on this issue and you still persist with your demand. This only tells
the community that you don't really value preserving people from insults, but engaging
in a witchhunt because #1 says things you don't like.
Nemesio
Originally posted by windmillLOL!
What's with your attitude no.1.Do you understand that the children and young adults are going to follow your example.It is obvious to me that The Chess Express is not doing this for himself but for the other users at RHP.He is wise enough to know that your behaviour may look good in the short term,but it's a downhill slide.I don't want these forums to be ...[text shortened]... than this don't you think?You have a life....so why not use what you are good at in a good way?
This post basically says that Ivanhoe and ChessExpress know what's best for the
RHP community and not the community itself. It only takes a small number
of objectors to get a post removed (5-10?) which constitute a significant minority of
people who actually reads the post. If #1 was sooooooooo objectionable, then his
posts would be moderated.
This is a self-moderated community. If it is too liberal for your tastes and you can't
garner enough support to get posts you feel are obectionable, then find another
community that appeals to your puritanical tastes.
Your post is arrogant beyond endurance!
Nemesio
Originally posted by NemesioYou seem pretty self-righteous for somebody who gets off on vicious verbal attacks.
We have two choices.
1) Either you're right, and the moderators are incompetent or being bribed or otherwise
convinced to ignore their duties, going all the way up to Russ (i.e., conspiricy against you
and Ivanhoe);
or
2) You're wrong and you're being absurd in your requests and expectations.
Given that the community now censors posts ...[text shortened]... from insults, but engaging
in a witchhunt because #1 says things you don't like.
Nemesio
If you look at the exchange I had with zakkwylder you’ll see that I simply refuted his attacks.
This is probably less hypocritical than what you’re doing.